2.2.7 Criminal Damage – s.1 Criminal Damage Act 1971

Statutory Provision

• s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA):
  • “A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”
• Maximum penalty:
  • If tried summarily → 3 months to 12 months custody (depending on value).
  • On indictment → up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
  • Higher penalties if aggravated (s.1(2) – endangering life; life imprisonment).

Actus Reus of Criminal Damage

1. Destroying or Damaging

• “Destroying” = rendering property useless or beyond repair.
• “Damaging” = causing harm that reduces value, usefulness, or function (even temporarily).
• Case: Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735
  • Mud smeared on police cell walls. Cleaning required. Held: temporary damage requiring effort/money to restore = criminal damage.
• Case: Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon [1986] Crim LR 330
  • Protesters painted streets in water-soluble paint. Council had to clean at expense. Held: financial cost of cleaning = damage, even though paint removable.
• Case: A v R (1978) Crim LR 689
  • D spat on policeman’s coat; easily wiped off. Held: not criminal damage since no expense/effort required.

Principle: Damage includes temporary/insignificant harm if effort or cost involved in restoration, but not trivial inconvenience.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

2. Property

• Defined in s.10(1) CDA 1971:
  • Includes all tangible property, real or personal.
  • Land, buildings, vehicles, clothing, physical objects all covered.
• Intangible property (e.g., electricity, data) excluded → covered by other statutes (Computer Misuse Act 1990).

3. Belonging to Another

• Defined in s.10(2) CDA 1971:
  • Property belongs to anyone having custody/control or proprietary interest.
• Mirrors concept in s.5 Theft Act 1968.
• Example: damaging rented accommodation = criminal damage even though tenant in possession, because landlord has proprietary interest.

4. Without Lawful Excuse

• s.5 CDA 1971 provides lawful excuses (objective + subjective):
  1. D believed owner consented or would consent.
  2. D acted to protect property (immediate need, reasonable means).
• Case: Chamberlain v Lindon [1998] 1 WLR 1252
  • D demolished wall he believed unlawfully obstructed right of way. Held: lawful excuse even though belief mistaken, provided genuinely held.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Mens Rea of Criminal Damage

Two possible mental states:

1. Intention to destroy or damage property.
   • Direct intent: D’s aim/purpose is to damage.
   • Indirect intent: Damage is virtually certain and D appreciates this.
2. Recklessness as to damage.
   • Interpreted in R v G [2003] UKHL 50 (overruled Caldwell recklessness).
   • Subjective test:
     • D is aware of a risk; and
     • In the circumstances known to him, it is unreasonable to take that risk.

Case Law

• R v Smith [1974] QB 354
  • D damaged fixtures in flat believing them to be his own. Conviction quashed — no mens rea since he honestly believed property was his (no “belonging to another”).
• R v G [2003] UKHL 50
  • Two boys set fire to newspaper under bin, spread to supermarket, caused £1m damage.
  • HL overturned Caldwell: liability only if D actually foresaw risk (subjective recklessness).
• R v Denton [1982] 1 All ER 65
  • D set fire to factory machines, believing he had owner’s consent. Held: belief in consent, even if unreasonable, can negate mens rea under lawful excuse.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Key Principles

• AR: damage need not be permanent or serious; includes temporary damage incurring cost/effort (Roe, Hardman).
• MR: either intent or subjective recklessness (R v G).
• Mistaken belief in consent or ownership can negate MR (Smith).

Evaluation

• Strengths:
  • Broad protection for property rights.
  • Subjective recklessness (R v G) ensures fairness — no liability for risks not appreciated.
  • Lawful excuse defence prevents criminalising genuine mistakes.
• Weaknesses:
  • “Damage” test can be uncertain — trivial acts sometimes criminal, sometimes not (A v R vs Hardman).
  • Scope limited to tangible property; modern offences like data destruction excluded.
  • Lawful excuse subjective element open to abuse.

Reform Proposals

• Law Commission (2002, 2019 reviews): suggested updating to cover intangible property (data, digital assets).
• Proposed codification of “damage” to clarify trivial vs substantial harm.
• Suggested merging with fraud-type offences to simplify property law.

Exam Application Strategy

1. Quote s.1(1) CDA 1971.
2. Apply AR: destruction/damage (Roe, Hardman, A v R), property, belonging to another, without lawful excuse (Chamberlain v Lindon).
3. Apply MR: intent or recklessness (Smith, R v G, Denton).
4. Conclude liability based on both AR + MR.

Conclusion

• Criminal Damage (s.1(1) CDA 1971):
  • Actus Reus: Destroying/damaging property belonging to another, without lawful excuse.
  • Mens Rea: Intention or subjective recklessness as to damage.
• Case law (Roe, Hardman, A v R, Smith, R v G, Denton) clarifies scope.
• Ensures strong protection for property, though criticised for uncertainty and limited coverage of modern intangible harms.